Right to die: a moral maze

Yesterday, Ms Purdy, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, was able to celebrate a famous victory when the chief prosecutor in England and Wales, Keir Starmer, issued new guidelines.

This is an emotive and highly complicated issue that divides the country, with campaigners on both sides claiming the moral high ground. Both also use harrowing stories to justify their standpoint.

Two key points emerged from the landmark ruling. First, it was a clarification of the law and not a change – assisted suicide has not been legalised.

What Mr Starmer attempted to do is provide a clear framework for prosecutors to decide which cases should proceed to court by placing closer scrutiny on the motivation of the suspect, and less emphasis on the health of the victim – such as whether they are terminally ill.

The second, and most important point, is that each case will be judged on its merits.

Only those who have gone through the traumatic experience of either caring for a loved one with a terminal illness or someone like Ms Purdy, who is suffering from a debilitating condition, can understand the strain that they are under.

As such, it is impossible for a court to implement a "one-size fits all" ruling.

What must happen now is for the Government to put a system in place where people in such serious circumstances have the advice and care that they require.

Gordon Brown has repeatedly talked about helping those most in need. Yet many hospices and care organisations would be forced to close if they solely relied upon money from the Government; they are only sustained by the public's continuing generosity.

Given the Prime Minister's empathy with this issue, he, perhaps, needs to consider whether his administration should do more to help people with long-term illnesses and, just as importantly, their carers.